Blog Sign In | Register


Defending Human Rights Defenders


The sixth Annual Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) in Uganda


The general overview of this sixth Annual Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) in Uganda

The Human Rights Centre Uganda is pleased to launch its sixth annual report on the working environment of human rights defenders in Uganda for the period of 2016 titled; “HRDs Striving for a Better Environment for the Protection and Promotion of their Rights.” This report provides an analysis on the operating environment as well as perspectives of HRDs on the extent to which their rights are promoted and protected. The report further provides information on the effectiveness of human rights defenders work in Uganda and recommendations on how to strengthen it.

The Operating Environment for Human Rights Defenders- the Key Issues

From our findings, the key issues that were affecting the working environment for HRDs were in relation to the conducive legal framework, strong and independent national human rights institutions, effective protection policies and mechanisms paying attention to HRD groups at risk, strong dynamic community of HRDs and respect of the work of HRDs by non-state actors.

Despite the existence of laws that provide an overall enabling framework for promotion and protection of HRDs rights such as the Constitution, there were still concerns with some specific laws that inhibit the full enjoyment of HRD rights.  These included the selective implementation of the Public Order Management Act, the restrictive provisions of the Anti-Pornography Act that have adverse impact on the freedom of expression and speech of HRDs among others. The report also noted the lack of a specific law to protect and recognize the work of HRDs.

Another key aspect of an enabling environment for HRDs was access to justice and ending impunity. Impunity against HRDs occurs when complaints submitted about alleged violations of their rights are not investigated or are dismissed without justification. The Government’s lack of investigation or slow pace of investigations of such violations could be seen as condoning attacks against HRDs. This could in turn nurture an environment where further violations are perceived as tolerated thus inhibiting access to justice

Institutions with the mandate for protection and promotion of the rights of HRDs, specifically, the UHRC and the EOC demonstrated interest in engaging with HRDs; participating in initiatives to amplify the important role of HRDs; and the need for their protection. However, these institutions were resource constrained and their effectiveness hampered by the inconsistent response by the State to recommendations and/or statements they made.

The report goes ahead to cite an increase in the number of individuals and organizations that identified themselves as HRDs and HRD organizations however, coordination and collaboration among HRDs at the district and local levels was minimal. In spite of the increase in the number identifying as HRDs, there were still gaps in the focus of HRDs. Specifically, there was limited attention to the role of non-state actors in promoting and adhering to human rights, as well as monitoring how they engage with HRDs and HRD organizations.

Enjoyment of rights under the UN Declaration on HRDs

During the survey the majority (81%) of HRDs reported enjoying their human rights as individual HRDs compared to 19% who said they did not. Some of the most frequently highlighted human rights that they enjoyed include: Conducting human rights work individually and in association with others, the lawful exercise of the occupation or profession of HRD, seeking, obtaining, receiving and holding information relating to human rights and having unhindered access and communication with non-governmental and intergovernmental organisations.

The most violated rights

The environment of operation for HRDs seemed more conducive for defenders dealing with non-controversial, non-sensitive matters, particularly service delivery, compared to those engaging in advocacy on politically and economically-sensitive issues.  The most violated rights cited were the right to effective protection under the law and the right to solicit, receive and utilize resources for the purpose of promoting and protecting human rights.

Least violated rights

Among the least violated rights, were the right to access information including the information on human rights enjoyed by 90% of HRDs however HRDs, working in the oil and gas sector mentioned that they were not always able to access all the information that they sought and this stemmed from the sometimes poor information and documentation systems in Government agencies.

The right to effective access to participate in governance and public affairs was enjoyed by 81% of HRDs who stated that they were able to participate in governance forums at local, district and national level, public proceedings and trials and were able to submit criticisms and proposals on government policies and programmes.

Similarly the right to work in association with others and to lawfully exercise their occupation was enjoyed by 96% of HRDs. The few that were hindered were HRDs that advocate for the rights of LGBTI persons, since their activities were deemed illegal.

85% of HRDs also mentioned that they enjoyed he right to participate in peaceful activities against violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Perpetrators of the threats (rank)

In reference to these threats, HRDs have reported the perpetrators being largely members of the community at 28% followed by government officials at 17% and politicians (16%) and this indicated a need for more engagement with them to better understand and appreciate the role and work of HRDs.

Trends over the past three years (good ones and persistent challenges)

The key trends cited in this report were increased collaboration between NGOs and some state agencies. The steady increase in the networking and support between NGOs and state agencies has been reported since 2014 and 2016 saw a continued establishment of this good working relationship through participation in discussions on the NGO Act 2016 by both state and non-state actors.

 The operating environment of HRDs in Uganda still presents recurring challenges. Critical challenges affecting the operating environment included among others, inadequate human and technical capacity to execute human rights work; lack of coordination and strong networks to protect the rights of HRDs particularly outside Kampala; resistance to human rights education arising from the contradiction between human rights provisions and some established traditional and cultural beliefs, practices and norms, threats, intimidations and office break-ins at NGO premises. Similarly identified was the lack of public support and appreciation of the work of HRDs owing to cultural religious and traditional beliefs as well as the limited understanding of the concepts and roles of HRDs in Uganda.


The report made specific recommendations to specific entities.  Parliament was urged to review existing laws that impede the work of HRDs and ensure that the legislative framework reflects provisions of the Constitution and Uganda’s international commitments to ensure a safe and conducive environment for HRD and to draft and enact specific legislation that will articulate HRD rights and provide for their protection and promotion.

HRD organizations were urged to strengthen the collaboration and networking amongst HRDs, enhance joint advocacy interventions for HRD-specific legislation, increase awareness amongst HRDs about protection mechanisms and increase attention to the work of women HRDs and the challenges they face as one of the groups most at risk among others

Uganda Human Rights Commission and JLOS Secretariat were urged to build capacities in HRD institutions targeting government officials both at the national and lower levels to raise awareness on the Declaration of HRDs; promote understanding of the role of HRDs and how they complement Government work.

The Uganda Police Force was urged to ensure timely investigations and prosecution of perpetrators particularly of break-ins into HRD offices to hold them accountable.

Development Partners were urged to support capacity building initiatives of HRDs with particular, provide flexible and agile funding requirements to facilitate increased funding for broader categories of HRDs, including those that work at the grassroots and support process of ensuring that HRDs are self -sustaining through strategic training on resource mobilisation techniques and supporting HRDs in establishing alliances with HRDs in other jurisdictions.

   Print Friendly and PDF


  • By: Yassin
    The Role of YOUTH Humans Right Defenders: The role of YOUTH Human Rights defenders is appreciated and they should also endeavor to partner with other relevant stakeholders so as to ensure that development is obtained within a human rights framework. SPEAK WHEN YOU SEE INJUSTICE SPEAK WHEN YOU SEE INEQUALITY SPEAK WHEN YOU SEE DEMOCRACY BEING ABUSED SPEAK WHEN YOU SEE POLICE BEATING UNEMPLOYED YOUTHS JUST BECAUSE THEY AS WHY..............

  • By: Yassin
    Youth Engagement in Anti Corruption : In order for the youth to become and remain engaged in anti-corruption initiatives, they need to feel included as stakeholders in any policy development and implementation of anti-corruption strategies, and perceive the ownership of the actions they are involved in. The more the youth takes the lead, the more the policies have the chance to succeed. Youth initiatives become even more structural when integrated in larger campaigns on anti-corruption.

  • By: sckawooya
    Parliament’s role in promoting Constitutionalism: Constitutionalism is the idea that a government can and should be limited in its powers by a fundamental law or set of laws, beyond the reach of an individual government to amend them; whose authority depends on its observing of these limitations. The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 as amended provides for a system of checks and balances amongst the 3 arms of government: Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. These three arms of government are each charged with specific duties. The Executive is charged with the duty to implement and maintain the Constitution and laws made under the Constitution; the Legislature is charged with the duty of formulating laws for the Country, which should be in conformity with the Constitution. Parliament is also charged with the duty to protect the Constitution and promote the democratic governance of Uganda; the Judiciary is the justice dispensing arm of government. Parliament is the legislative, elected body of government tasked with passing laws of Uganda that provide for good governance and playing the oversight role of the other arms of government. Parliament is thus the representation of the people. Parliament is principally charged with 2 roles in promoting constitutionalism. These have been enshrined in the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda; protecting the Constitution and holding the Executive accountable. Protecting the Constitution In order to appreciate this duty imposed on Parliament, Uganda’s history with regard to the constitutions had and the making of the 1995 Constitution should be noted. Benjamin J. Odoki, in his essay, “The Challenges of Constitution-making and Implementation in Uganda” he noted that the making of a new constitution in Uganda demonstrated the desire of the people to fundamentally change their system of governance into a truly democratic one. Further that the process was thus a major step towards the democratization of the country which had experienced nearly thirty years of oppression, tyranny and exploitation. The history of Uganda’s constitutionalism road is that up until 1995, Uganda had had 3 constitutions namely: 1962, 1966 and 1967 Constitutions. It should be noted that in making of these constitutions, massive consultations of the citizens was not done by the responsible authorities. They had simply been enacted, and handed down to be implemented. It could thus be argued that the views of the people had not been reflected in the Constitutions. Thus, in 1988, the Uganda Constitution Commission was established and it spearheaded the task of making the Constitution that was promulgated in 1995 by the Constituent assembly. The making of the Constitution was distinctly characterized by popular participation by the people which was achieved through wide consultation and national public debate. The Constitution under Article 79 lays down the functions of Parliament which are to make laws and protect the constitution and promote democratic governance of Uganda. The duty of protecting the constitution would among others include preserving the spirit of the constitution that way it is not amended or altered veering off the purpose of the people. Since 1995, the constitution has been amended a number of times; including September and December 2005. The amendments have among others been for the creation of new districts, new offices, creation of special courts to handle offences relating to corruption, remove the limits on the tenure of office of the President. The role of parliament in protecting the constitution must be to vote either for or against an amendment of the constitution whilst being mindful of the Uganda’s history. Parliament should also be mindful of the fact that the constitution that was promulgated in 1995 was one that reflected the views of the people who had lived through the oppression and tyranny that characterizes our past as a nation. Parliament is further urged to not only look at the present and past but also the future. Ideally, the test should be that if an amendment years down the road can easily lead to oppression or tyranny stands to be exploited to the detriment of Uganda and her citizens, that amendment should not be allowed. As earlier noted, Constitutionalism is about ensuring that governance is done in accordance with the law and not the whim of the government of the day. Similarly, the constitution should not be easily and frequently amended to suit the needs of the government of the day. And this is what in principle the duty of protecting the constitution is all about. Holding the Executive accountable As noted earlier, each arm of government has certain controls over the other 2 arms. For Parliament, it principally has the duty of holding the Executive or the state accountable for all decisions that it makes as well as its actions. This is provided for under the national objective I which makes it clear that the President has to report to Parliament and the nation all steps taken to ensure the realization of the national objectives and directive principles of state policy. The goal of holding the Executive accountable is such that there is difficulty in the State abusing the power that it is given by law. Parliament, in fulfilling this duty has held weekly plenary sessions in which the Prime Minister is tasked to explain state actions of lack thereof on issues, and through the parliamentary committee sessions, has held the state accountable. The expectation for the 10th Parliament is that it does not take the trend of the 9th Parliament, which during its first year was seen to be assertive and its actions promoting constitutionalism and over the course of time became less active with the fire unfortunately dying out. Members of Parliament should at all times be mindful of Parliament’s role in promoting constitutionalism and in all decisions have them at the forefront as they are the key in protecting Uganda from ever experiencing the past that we have worked so hard to distance ourselves from.

  • By: mutawai
    Right to be employed: Dr Stella Nyanzi OF MISR undressed after she was locked out of her office. As human rights defenders how do we take this issue on and advise? We need to take on peace and conflict resolution as a focus area because not all situations require extreme measures.

  • By: kjose
    HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS SUBMIT JOINT REPORTS TO THE 26TH SESSION OF UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW WORKING: The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique mechanism of the Human Rights Council (HRC) aimed at improving the human rights situation on the ground of each of the 193 United Nations (UN) Member States. Under this mechanism, the human rights situation of all UN Member States is reviewed every 4.5 years. 42 States are reviewed each year during three Working Group sessions dedicated to 14 States each. These three sessions are usually held in January/February, May/June and October/November. The result of each review is reflected in an “outcome report” listing the recommendations the State under review (SuR) will have to implement before the next review. The UPR is a full-circle process comprised of 3 key stages: 1) Review of the human rights situation of the SuR; 2) Implementation between two reviews (4.5 years) by the SuR of the recommendations received and the voluntary pledges made; 3) Reporting at the next review on the implementation of those recommendations and pledges and on the human rights situation in the country since the previous review. The process provides for the participation of all relevant stakeholders, including non-governmental organisations and national human rights institutions (NHRIs). Civil society actors and NHRIs can submit information which can be added to the “other stakeholders” report to be considered during the review. For the 26th Session of the UPR Working Group, Civil society actors submitted joint reports for the UPRs of Uganda.

  • By: hrcug
    The Anna Lindh lecture 2014: Ms Margaret Sekaggya guest speaker at the Anna Lindh lecture 2014 organized by @lunduniversity and @RWallenbergInst

Follow Us:
facebook google+ YouTube twitter linkedln